ruksak
-
Posts
10,146 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
88
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by ruksak
-
-
I'm not taking it seriously Mr. Assumptive, just pointing out what seems to be going on. It's someone trying to make something out of nothing. It's not as if his words are going to come haunt him and cause him to lose everything and become homeless.
Hey, you facepalmed my boy John Dee. lol.....
Why is it so hard to have a lighthearted conversation?
And BTW...John Dee IS now homeless thanks to your pride obliterating facepalm. If you see a guy downtown with a raggedy Manning jersey holding a sign that says "Will dance for food", its prolly John. Give the guy a sammich.
-
I think the colts do have depth at that position granted thomas stays healthy and rucker produces they would be set there.
Everybody STOP!
Me and Smitto agree?
No way.
-
i thought it was just me but i see its not they really startin to make me mad they say they only spend money on our players but just let 3 or more leave then they say they build though the draft and aint get no corner so what is they doin
They did get a corner....and like Wordofmouth said.....friggin what?
-
I am starting to think this team may "finally" be looking into a "3-4" type look.
Our LB's are so far from 3-4 LB's, they would get bowled over with a 3 man front.
-
I can see it so clearly.
Archie slappin the back of Eli's head.
-
You don't do a very good job. I've been eating your food in the middle of the night for a week now... lolololol
So...the case of the missing lasagna has been solved!
And you would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for those meddling kids.
-
has he ever missed a game in the nfl... no
college... no
high school.. i think one game his sophmore year
No one has ever broken into my house, but I still lock the doors.
-
edit: Word filter deemed my post as racist. nvrmind
-
Yeah, 4-12 sounds about right. 4-12, at best....
I'd be more optimistic if we had a dominant run game or stout defense to lean on. We don't. Our run game has been a perennial joke (honest to god), ranked nearly last every year. Our defense, even with Freeney and Mathis, has been middle-of-the pack, at best. I doubt you can fix all that in one single year if Manning goes down. If it were that easy, we'd have it all fixed already.
So yeah, I think that sounds about right.
4-12 is optimistic at best.
This whole show is built around our QB. It would take 2 off-seasons to address the appropriate changes that would be required.
-
My thoughts? A couple of things.
1) Do you think they are going to open the play book and show everything they plan on doing with him in the preseason? Why put that on tape for others to see?
No, certainly not. I was taken back by the fact that he ran the same exact rush pattern every single time. No stunt, no drop, the same thing. Hence why I created this thread, I was surprised by it.
As I have posted, it has since occurred to me that this must have been by design. Mario's flavor of vanilla was served as bland as could be, purposely. Or at least I surmise that.
I hold out the possibility that this was just simply a bad idea and they will have to rethink it because it doesn't work.
-
As jskinnz said, The 3-4 thing is indeed a myth.
Back in 01-04 (mostly), Peyton had troubles vs 1 team and it was the Pats who were using a 3-4. Thing is, every teams in the NFL had troubles vs the Pats and really, it was because of BB.
Since then, if you look at the last 6-7 years or so, Chargers, Steelers and Ravens have had good to great defenses (in the AFC). These teams have been using the 3-4. Now ask yourself, is it really Manning having troubles vs the 3-4 or vs good/great defenses?
If anything, the games Manning has had since about 5 years (if you look at it as a whole) vs the good/great defenses of the AFC (all pretty much using 3-4) shows exactly the 3-4 thing and PM having problems is a myth: Chargers, Pats, Steelers, Jets, Ravens.
The stats Manning has had in those games speak volume. 400yards + passing in some of those games, without 0 running game, that really tells you how much PM's having trouble vs the 3-4.
For the record, that 6 ints game vs the Chargers was in the rain, with a useless OL and no run game.
For that 6 ints game, I could give you the example of that Chargers game in the playoff, which the Colts lost but PM had over 400 yards passing. You're mixing the fact the Colts have had 0 running game and a poor defense with "PM has had troubles vs the 3-4 because the Colts have been ending up losing". The Colts lost to a better team. PM dominated that D in that game but the rest of the Colts team (running game and defense) was so poor it couldnt managed to just play decent and win that game vs the Chargers.
What would be more accurate to say would be "PM has been able to keep the Colts in games where they didnt had a business being in".
The fact he's the only player in the NFL to be able to do so shouldnt be held against him, and certainly not used to make an argument against him.
Do you not see how inherently backward it is of you to say what you are saying?
Essentially you are stating "The 3-4 isn't what gives Manning trouble, its the fact that these defenses were better defenses".
These "better defenses" are 3-4 defenses. So WTH?
You are tauting yardage totals while seemingly purposely ignoring the increase in turnover. The increase in turnover is directly tied to the scheme and the prototype player for the scheme.
Don't ignore the elephant in the room.
Peyton does better against 4-3, why? They are easier to read pre-snap, along with the cover-2 schemes often attached to the 4-3 line-up.
In reference to the big yardage numbers you posted;
It is common knowledge and not unusual at all for QB's that are losing by multiple scores to end up with 300-400 YDS. Because they abandon the run game and moderate range passing in lew of stretching the field. Hence why Matt Schaub pounded out 4k+ YDS in each of the last two seasons. A talented QB, an upper echelon WR and a porous defense resulted in constant downfield passing.
-
Huh?
You do realize that 99.9% of kick returners will take a knee if it's 5 yards deep in the endzone, right?
Thats a gross exaggeration. Teams will roll the dice for a myriad of reasons by running it out. The old philosophy kept the returner bound to take a knee. With the rule change, even early in pre, we see teams putting their toes in the water and bringing it out, often with some success, in relation to advancing beyond the 20.
A team that needs a big play but has a stagnant, ineffective offense, but a great returner, will bring it out in hopes of shortening the field or scoring on a big return. To that end, I feel this rule change may enhance the excitement, rather than tether it as so many are fearful of.
The most exciting "definite" play in football is the kickoff. I say "definite" because it's the only play that will feature such speed every single time.It is also the most random and empty-headed play in football. I require more strategy to wipe my bum-bum.
My singular greatest reason for supporting the new rule is, we will now see more onus placed upon the offense to operate as intended. By default, this drastic reduction of returns directly gives us, the fans, more offense vs defense football.
The only statistic that people are drumming up when invoking the last period in which we kicked off from the 35 has been in direct correlation to return averages and starting field position averages.
The lost statistics tied to the rule, that I simply cannot locate, is how this effects the numbers on offense and defense.
Less returns mean:
Less injury.
Less turnover.
More offense / More total YDS
It cannot be argued that the trade-off for less returns, which most often result in a guy sliding to the ground at the 19, is more offense. A trade-off that has due benefit for the fan.
Frankly, I don't like watching our return guy, Joe Blow, fumble the ball away from our offense and inherent possession toward the opposing team. Watching my QB take his helmet back off and reading the foulest of curse words upon his lips doesn't add much positive to the game for me.
GoPats wrote:
And in this case, it's not like the NFL is doing something "new." This isn't the type of change that people just need to get used to. They're going back to something that was in place for 20 years, and was modified... for a reason, it seems.
So much has changed in since then. Many rules have been tweaked to improve offense. The players are, overall, better athletes. The defensive schemes have changed accordingly.
I ask that people look beyond the obvious statistics regarding returns, and look deeper into how this correlates toward offense, number of possessions (less muffed returns) and how field position directly affects the quality of the game.
It will be interesting to see the final tally when the year is up, in regard to total returns for TD. But when we dig deeper and realize the effect this has on offense, I think many people will become converts toward acceptance of the change.
-
Ruksak, you mention STs and the '05 diviional game but forget to mention the '06 divisional game against Balt in which AV kicked 5 FGs, three of which where from over 40 yards.
Convenient of me wasn't it? L0L...
Look, I don't like kickers. I don't like FG's. I wouldn't complain a bit if they cut them out of the game altogether. Or at least lessened the FG to 1 point. I hate to see all the hard work and strategy inherent in todays NFL offenses and defenses get placed upon the foot of a tiny Venezuelan immigrant soccer convert. I have a certain appreciation for the FG, but more often than not I am not a fan of the FG.
I do think ST is important part of the team, 1/3 in my opinion, and to discount it I think it being harsh . . .if a team selects or trades for a good return man why should they be penalized? . . . why should a team like the colts have a PM who single handedly can have more of an impact on the game than say Chad Henne, it is fair that the colts have a signle player (PM) that can have more of an impact that his counterpart in Miami? If not, then why should not teams have a Cribbs whilst others have a lesser return man . . . so it kind of work both ways . . .That was well said and much truth to it, I won't deny. I do not like the reason for the change. That being safety. I think its a cop-out to protect they're overpaid investments (players). Its more about the bottom line than actually protecting the careers of mostly ancillary players.
-
We have Frathis!!
Why do people say this?
I think Meeney sounds cooler.
-
STs and kick-offs are an integral part of the game , and always have been.
...and still are. Only now, the dynamic has changed. In many cases the kicking team can decide whether to allow a return or not. In many cases not. I would strongly argue that this rule change has added an entirely new dimension of strategy to the game, for both respective sides.
Watering them down is the second-most pansying down of the NFLExplain in detail how this has watered down the returns? I think it has made them more challenging. Returners have exponentially gotten better, more athletic, faster and we've seen record TD returns over the last decade in men like Dante Hall and Devin Hester, Cribbs and even Sanders going back a little further. Tell me how returning a kick for 95 YDS and returning a kick for 105 YDS is any different, other than the added excitement involved?
....following all of the pass-happy rules that gave all the favoritism to the offense.....which did what for the fans? Anyone under 60 tends to agree that this made the game funner to watch. Bronco Nagurski is dead, and so is the game he played. Good for that, well not the death of Bronco, but the one dimensional game that was his NFL. Defenses adjusted and we still see 10-6 scores every year.
I didn't like the 2 point conversion when it was added. I have grown to adore it.
Many people hated the instant reply when it was introduced. Heck, they're still working on it, but most fans have grown to demand this aspect now.
Change is a stubborn package to sell in sports, but it often breeds more than mere acceptance after time.
-
I'll bite.
The most the Colts really have kept at WR is 5 players. If memory serves, last year they had 6 on the active roster when they added Taj Smith but that was in a ridiculous injury-riddled season. And his contribution was solely on special teams. In 2009, they opened the season with only 4 WR's.
A 5 WR corps of White, Collie, Wayne, Gonzo, & Garcon is deep. Among the deepest in the entire league. How do they make up a roster with those players and add the insurance you want?
To get to the 53 man roster, I am guessing a positional breakdown of:
3 QB
4 RB
3 TE
5 WR
9 OL
24
3 ST specialists
5 DE
5 DT
7 LB
9 DB
26
I suppose it is possible that they add a 6 WR instead of a another position, but they have traditionally not done that in the past. My best guess is the insurance you want will more than likely come at the expense of a player expected to make the WR roster.
I would guess we might do 2 QB's again.
Other than that, you laid it all out pretty well.
-
Manning's 3-4 troubles are fiction. He has had outstanding games against that scheme.
You're missing my point. Many of his greatest failures have been against the 3-4. Peyton has chewed up and spit out all manner of defense at one point or another. But the 3-4 schemes have presented him with his most flawed performances ever. To his credit, he always figures them out to some extent.
I may be wrong, if I am please holler at me for it, but wasn't SD running a 3-4 against Manning during that 6 INT belly-flop several years ago? We all know about the 05 AFCCG against Pitt. Lebeau had him scrambling in panic to figure out his blitz schemes.
Please note I'm not championing the 3-4 as a magic bullet against Manning. I'm only stating that this has been the most consistent scheme in unraveling Manning's game.
-
Im not singing praises of painter its just ridiculous to see so many fans bash a player after so little playtime.
Its not his lack of playtime. Its his lack of development in key areas of fundamentals after a few years of practicing, scrimmaging and even seeing high level game action that is disturbing to so many.
2 years of being in NFL QB boot camp and he still looks raw as a rookie fresh off the bus. The guy has a pretty crappy mentor though. Maybe its that hack Manning that isn't capable of teaching the kid how to not get eaten by defenders while going through his progressions?
-
This thing with Harris is disturbing to say the least. Thanks for the excellent work Barry.
-
San Diego has got to be the most talented team to not make a SB appearance over many years now. I still feel unclean for having rooted for them against NE in 08's AFCCG. It was like Mussolini and Hitler were boxing and I had to place a bet.
-
i jope collie is hurt not injured so we can sign moss or t.o it will be our last resort so we will have too....fingers are crossed
Hi Nate!
Not to derail but, I just looked at your profile and your rep is -12 '2nd string'. Not that this means anything of course, but, I've been laughing for at least 3 minutes. Why is that so funny?
I "jope" you don't think there is a difference between being hurt and being injured? Actually I heard that Collie has a class 3 boo boo. The trainers are applying several doses of wuv n kisseys.
:vomit:
-
You miss the point....while several posters above here ^ express an understanding.
Scratchin' my head here too?
We aren't lookin for a QB comparable to Manning.
We need a guy that doesn't turn the ball over and can make simple reads, go through progressions without getting eaten by pass rushers.
Some people think the term "game manager" is faulty, but it has real game application.
-
FWIW I do these exact surgeries and trained with some of the colts MDs way back when, so I guess I can't avoid my 2 cents here. I don't have an "inside scoop" nor would I ever probe for one, but this is what can be put together from the media, medicine, and bit of speculation:
Peyton's first surgery was a posterior minimally invasive foraminotomy by Fessler in Chicago. As far as I can gather, he had pain and probably not much nerve dysfunction (numbness/weakness) with that episode. The recovery is somewhat trivial other than incisional pain, and after a few weeks it's hard to have the problem recur. Common sense says light duty for a while, but after that increase as tolerated.
With this 2nd surgery, from what I've read, he had again a minimally invasive discectomy from a posterior approach. The posterior discectomy is somewhat old-school, as most would now have an anterior discectomy and fusion vs. artificial disc, but the benefit of posterior (esp with minimally invasive making for a better recovery) is no hardware required and a patient gets a chance for more "normal" anatomy in recovery. To have a fusion is not a contraindication to playing football, but it raises flags, and one must wait at least 3-6 months for impact if bone is not fused... So what he had is not the fusion, but it is still wise to wait 1-3 months for impact, with the idea being that recurrent bulging from the residual (normal, non herniated) disc could still occur and compress nerve or spinal cord.
As far as I can tell he did have either numbness or weakness, but I don't know if it's public knowledge as to the etiology being nerve root or spinal cord? I can't imagine that peyton would have ignored significant symptoms, so he probably will have a quick recovery if any numbness/weakness was present preop.
I think they are letting him throw now, as that's a motion he is in control of, rather than taking snaps and throwing in "game" scenarios where falling is likely or unpredictable forces are likely.
A healthy, motivated athlete will probably be fine, and they wouldn't have signed him if he wasn't likely to have a good prognosis (and I can promise you the Feuer, Fessler, and about 6-12 other surgeons have already discussed this with the bean counters). I'm personally not very worried about him playing at full capacity medically, I just hope with the lockout practice delays and now peyton not throwing that the team is in sync when they need to be for real games?
+1 For being more smarterer than me.
Very well written and sensible.
-
I'm going to say some things that will likely not sit well with many of you, but here it goes....
I like the change. One gripe I've heard for years is how kickers shouldn't affect the game so much. How many times have we seen, in big games, an offense execute a great 1:00 drill only to end up inside of FG range with only seconds left.....then the kicker shanks it (see 2005 Colts Divisional game).
The same could be said about the kick-offs. Poor kicking and sloppy special teams can murder offenses and defenses alike (again, see last years Colts divisional playoff). Special teams is exciting, but all too often it is random and one missed tackle by an ancillary special teams player sends HoF champions home for the season.
With this I have come to feel comfortable about the rule change. It will put the onus back on the offenses and defenses, the true components of football.
With little effort I have placed before you above, two examples of how special teams may have cost us two legitimate shots at SB titles.
I have never liked kick-offs. The very nature of the kick-off is random and wholly reliant on the play of guys that are perennially on the practice squad bubble.
Kick it, down it at the 20 and lets play football, not smear the _____. The rule change allows for a chance, albeit much less of one, for a return. That component is still intact, only now it is minimized.
Manning: I'm In Class With Tom Brady
in NFL General
Posted
Well one is NFC and the other is AFC.....
So 2008 Super Bowl:
Eli 1
Tom 0